If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hiya. I was intrigued by thesefew edits (one appeared as a reversion notice in my notifications bar). I am all for consistency, but would we not think that (for example) the diaspora categories should in some way be related to the emigration categories? (Diaspora of X are diaspora of X because they or their forebears emigrated from X. Perhaps there should be intermediate categories to more loosely associate the diaspora with the emigrants, but I'm not sure disassociating them entirely is the right path. Not if "consistency" is the only goal/issue.) Are you in the middle of a broader review of those categories? In which you are already planning to "re-associate" them in a different manner? If not, I'm inclined to suggest that we find some way of re-associating them. Guliolopez (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. As you are certainly aware, you can't use a general term like "Israeli settlements" for a category dealing with specifically the settlements in the occupied areas because "Israeli settlements" (the category you attempted to create, which was soon reverted) hints at "Settlements in Israel" i.e any municipality of Israel. This ambiguousity is declined and is in any case settled by the title "Maps showing Israeli settlements in disputed territories". However, if you reject the term "disputed" you can move it to Category:Maps showing Israeli settlements in occupied territories, which is as good as far as I'm concerned. Still, when renaming the cat you'll have to migrate all the parents from the original page to the destination, and not only one of them ;) otherwise the new category will be seen as miscreated. Thanks. Orrlingtalk 10:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand but my categorization was no accident. 'Settlements in Israel' and 'w:Israeli settlements' are mutually exclusive sets. A defining feature of 'w:Israeli settlements' is that they are beyond the Green Line, outside Israel. There are no 'Israeli settlements' in Israel, by definition. Several things follow from this fact/unfortunate terminology, one of which is that the categorization of settlements is in a pretty poor state and needs cleaning up. For example, Category:Settlements in Israel includes Category:Populated places on the Golan Heights and Category:Community settlements in Judea and Samaria District among others that refer to Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line miscategorized as being in Israel. Regarding Israel's municipalities, they extend into the occupied territories, so settlements in 'any municipality of Israel' does not equate to 'settlements in Israel'. Another example, 'Settlements in Israel' in not a valid parent category for 'Maps of municipalities of Israel' if 'Maps showing Israeli settlements' (with or with occupied or disputed in the name) is included as a subcategory. I could go on...

Regarding the name 'Maps showing Israeli settlements' rather than 'Maps showing Israeli settlements in occupied territories', it was deliberate choice. There is no real need to say that they are in occupied territories. They are all in the Israeli occupied territories and the parent category included that term. This was partly to avoid the usual needless nationalist tug of war over language I'm all too familiar with in Wikipedia.

Regarding "when renaming the cat you'll have to migrate all the parents from the original page to the destination". Not quite. I need to migrate valid categories and drop the rest.

Category:Israeli settlements in occupied territories| - This is the valid parent category that I assigned to 'Maps showing Israeli settlements'.

Category:Maps of municipalities of Israel|~ - Not assigned because these are not Maps of municipalities of Israel

Category:Maps of disputed territories|Israeli settlements - Not assigned because these are not Maps of disputed territories.

Category:Maps of the Golan Heights|Israeli settlements - Not assigned because these are not exlcusively maps of Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights.

Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories|Israeli settlements - Not assigned because these are not exclusively maps of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories.

Category:Maps of the Arab-Israeli conflict|Israeli settlements - I don't recall whether I assigned this one to 'Maps showing Israeli settlements' but I agree it is a valid parent cat.

I'm sorry, your proposal is declined. The cat can either stay in it's very well-maintained long-prevailing adequate status or equally move in-one-piece to Maps showing Israeli settlements in occupied territories or any name that will preserve the disambiguousity. Not All Wiki end-users (far less than you apparently assume) are fluent in the Arab-Israeli terminology. That the parent category is "Israeli settlements in occupied territories" doesn't mean the category itself is exempt from being clear on what it's concerning. The word "settlement" is an imperfect term that may mean any populated place that was once settled, see Category:Settlements. Therefore "Maps of settlements", for instance, doesn't suggest a direct throwaway at "Maps of settlements in occupied territories", does it? It isn't the English Wikipedia here and you can be quite assured that we regularly work to adjust factual and plain-neutral titles to categories to just prevent those familiar en:wiki tugs of war; that is contrary to deliberate samantic choices like the one you just admittedly made that potentially leave many of our readers mixing terms innocently. Category names can't have ambiguousity. Just because we can't allow ourselves to be like en:wiki we shouldn't welcome 'adjustments' from fuller term to shorter term in areas where it might provoke confusion sustained by the assumption that "there is no real need to say that they are in occupied territories" as if what is obvious to one is obvious to others.

The category's parents are all valid. "Maps of municipalities of Israel": While we seem to agree that these settlements are not in Israel they are indisputably to some extent under Israeli jurisdiction and qualify for containment in the Israeli demographics tree as irregular entries, as they factually are. "Maps of disputed territories": The maps we're dealing with are maps of areas of past and present dispute and removing this tag is an absurdity. "Maps of the Golan Heights" and "Maps of the Palestinian territories": Israe's occupied territories straddle Syria's Golan Heights and Palestine's West Bank (and to some level Gaza too) so maps of Israeli settlements in occupied territories are most relevant under both these cross-parents.

From this point, if you still disagree with the above you can start a discussion on the category's talkpage and attract more views through the Village Pump. Let me know. Regardz. Orrlingtalk 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

To both (thus including @Sean.hoyland:). Does "Israeli settlements" mean that it's about settlemtns patronaged by, or promoted by, or endorsed by, the Israeli government? Or it's simply about people only from Israel or only Israelian citizens? If the answer to all these questions is "no" then the category should be only "Settlement in the disputed territories" (as a matter of fact they are known also in Italy as "disputed territories"). -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat) 22:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is showing along with the entry at the category move list. If you question requests for any established reason (aligning category names with article-names on the en:wiki generally isn't such) you can drag them down below the "Category moves to be discussed" subtitle (and state your reason for discussion) but you can not delete them from the page. Orrlingtalk 18:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that the information page for naming categories is merely a proposal for a guideline or policy page, and that there has been unclear information on the current practices or policies of Wikimedia Commons for proper category names, I think it best these categories warrant discussion and at least some mention of the naming schemes of other wikis, including English Wikipedia, to guide how Commons structures its content. I have moved the request down to the appropriate section as a courtesy, however the notice at the top of the page was very clear to me. I would not trust a bot to determine what is considered controversial or not, that's up to the community and consensus to decide. The header at the top of the page at the time of writing this says, in no uncertain terms:

No controversial name changes. All moves have to follow the language policy. Please do not request name changes that you know may be controversial (this includes, for example, renaming locations into a different local language—even if that is the official name used there)...If you challenge a request added here, please simply remove it and kindly inform the requester of your reason for doing so. Invite the requester to open a formal request using {{move|new name}} or COM:CFD to discuss the requested name change. Consider notifying the requester even if the request is unsigned—determine who the requester is by looking at the page history.

I have thus followed this instruction to the letter, regardless of what you may think of it. I also think it best practice to discuss something before making a large move request to a bot we can't reverse and may regret. As a show of good faith, I've already moved most of the requests you listed on that page as deemed uncontroversial, which you can see for yourself through my contributions history. But if something can be controversial, it needs greater discussion at CFD, not just here.

Yes, I would very much appreciate a proper link to the consensus or policy page that says this is the case, before making a judgment on it. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed, the header you just quoted here was by mistake not modified upon the introduction of the "Category moves to be discussed" procedure in about last October, which abolished the pattern of removing entries from the page when challanging them and has since proved to be a collaborative and respectful method of working out questioned commands centrally. Thanks for following that procedure now, and sorry that you were misled by the older notice (a result of a longer-time mess and absence of bot operation). To just make sure things aren't perceived incorrectly, I, and probably any other editor of my scope of activity, are in no need of "courtesy" by having things done the right way and using one's bot to carry out productive renames is definitely not a show of good faith but is a common procedure here, while of course I agree with your comment about generally striving at being sure that a move is right before performing it. The hundreds of moves I'm responsible to throughout the recent years confirm though that if I've posted an entry on that list it's most probably the more correct/preferable/consistent nameform. Orrlingtalk 02:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! You've assured me through the volume of work you've done you know better about how to name the categories than I do at least. We can request removal of those instructions at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/en if you so choose, to prevent future misunderstandings. And sorry if I offended you in any way, looking back, my comment may have came across as accusative and I did not mean it by that. I will still suggest "Lamed Hey" as an alternative category name, perhaps appropriate as a category redirect, but if you still insist the point I will find time to move it to "Convoy of the thirty-five" (is thirty five hyphenated? capitalized?) as you find appropriate. Oh, there was also one issue I almost forgot to mention, one of the subcategories contains a number inside that might not be an appropriate Commons category name, how do you suggest we pull it out if we should? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re your comment on my objections: I have moved dozens of categories listed as entries on that page for quite some time, most of which were listed by you or DenghiùComm. However, I've had at least one user object to one of my category moves, so I want to be careful this time around whether to perform a move or not, and whether the community agrees with it. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from, and why I repeatedly ask for a little clarification before starting on another category page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I note your recat of this file from Category:Men with black skin to Category:People of Black African descent and your elimination of the former category. Although the latter may be more PC, how do you know that this man or any other is of African descent? Although we are all ultimately descended from black Africans, that was a long time ago and now there are many people with black skin who are not from Africa -- Melanesians, Maoris, Australian Aboriginals, etc.

Making assumptions about descent is tricky -- we have a Bishop who just got her DNA tested, and although you would put her in Category:People of Black African descent, the largest group of here ancestors are Scandinavian. Better, I think to categorize observable facts rather than making assumptions that may be wrong on this difficult subject. It seems to me that Category:Men with black skin may not be PC, but it is observable. It's certain that the first time you put a Maori in Category:People of Black African descent, you'll get an angry complaint.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not PC-guided, ever! That category shifting you point at was not directed by that kind of consideration (-and I'm pretty horrified by the idea that anyone possibly does pursue it when categorizing on Wiki). So don't be mistaken, I was led by the primary notion of «black skin» being simply a near-implausible classification trait, lexically; any person you'd commonly refer to as having a "black skin" namely quite rarely has a skin with that colour, pointing at that such a tag is first and foremost subjective and relative rather than absolute and my sole point is applying the more objective tags and harmonizing as much content with this understanding. You are very correct that I in the above specific case introduced an assumption (=that was my only tool provided no factual data) and about the trickiness in overall trying to categorize people when actual ethnicity is unknown. Eliminating "Wo/Men with black skin" had nothing to do with sentiments, it was only the straighforward understanding that "black skin" is an incorrect grouping method, so you can see in my recent work I did also find several Pacific portraits. Obviously I could mistake any figure that doesn't have enough details. Thanks very much for this accurate comment, do assist in suggesting ways for improving observable and objective categorization mechanism when data is scarce. Do you think "Category:People with darker skin" should be created? I would have no problem with this. Orrlingtalk 15:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the PC assumption -- we see too much PC in the real world. One of my hot buttons is the use in much of the American media of "African-American" as a description of anyone with dark skin. As I noted above, "African" is not always correct, and, of course, neither is "American" -- even if the person is in the USA they might well not be a citizen or even resident here.

The current terminology in use in my circles is "People of color" or "black". Most people that I know who fit the category call themselves "black". I don't have a good answer for the question -- clearly we need a category, as many potential off-WMF users look for images of people with particular complexions. Perhaps this needs a discussion at the Village Pump. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

I've noticed you used to arrange lots of categories in Commons and seems as you've been gone for quite a while... Did you quit? Yuval Y § Chat § 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I only log in to the Commonssphere once a month (every 1st) now since suspending my donation in February facing this failure, to just see if there is any important change made such as the restoration of my editorial rights - As I've quite clearly indicated in that thread (which you've all obviously read and which followed this) those latter had been central to my Commons contribution and so I will not resume my activity here before those rights are returned to my toolkit completely and thoroughly. If one wants a responsive attention from me there's clearly several off-wiki ways to do so as this one space is not attended over the month. Orrlingtalk 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Geez... I feel like i'm in a disaster area. Seems as things got totally over the edge and I saw no actual reason that the moving tool had been taken from you. I've returned you the mover ability and I hope you'd return to your activity. I've sent you an email, based on the address you wrote at the bureaucrat, and I hope it would work. Reply when you will. Yuval Y § Chat § 23:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's only two of the files I should yet recover back with their names which for some reason failed (=due to the auto-generated redirects, and you do realize that this is the issue my campaign went all about from the outset..) so I was like compelled to leave a silly gap between the name and the .jpg suffix, in case you have the right permissions for fixing them these are File:Philly .jpg and File:Two men .jpg (need to remove the little space before the dot), lol Orrlingtalk 18:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been indeed, a disaster area back in last December. Where were editors like you then... and you're even an Israeli :-D
איפה היית לפני שנה שלמה - אין לך מושג כמה מתסכל זה היה, אבסורד מוחלט! Orrlingtalk 18:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. I'm glad I could help you . I personally prefer choosing less generic names, but as far as I checked that's not an obligation. Next time, If you need anything it would be simpler if you'd write me in my talk-page. Yuval Y § Chat § 23:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanxxx.. hope there will be no reason 4 dat. Ye I should be getting to the old category work soon tomorrow. though it appears I will at first refrain from uploading new images, for a month during which zero acts of rename trolling onto the current upload portfolio should occur. Too traumatizing. Gonna call ya haha. Orrlingtalk 15:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hello, You have moved files again against policy. Therefore i removed your file mover permission again. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not moved any file against policy, making up things is against the Wiki spirit and is not a nice thing to look at; I have recovered self-uploaded files into their original, legit names, after they were moved against policy about a year ago. I surprisingly managed to now finally fix these files perfectly without even needing to ask any assistance in deleting the obstructing redirects. This is a very good thing, and so, I would ask you to kindly reinstate the file mover permission as it was, so I can go on with my work when it might be needed. Orrlingtalk 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, sadly you might be misinterpreting the events - if you even actually followed them at all when they occurred, back in last December. Making up things is NOT a nice thing to do here on Wiki. We work with one-another in collaboration and sensitivity and no personal harassment is accepted. Obviously no abuse was recorded by me, I was retaining some original filenames that had been vandalized, you should know the events. Of course the title of your post here is one that intends to create a pseudo-reality, and you should explain to yourself and to all of us why you're acting in this manner; we have a rename policy on here on Wiki, it seems to work - I have been very happy with it. I am a friend of policies. Last year that policy was straightforwardly abused by someone who overnight swooshed over 16 of my uploads into other "names", stating false and laughable reasons for each such deed - please view the history of this issue so you learn; and now eventually I, backed with the clear understanding that a donor's say about his filename (as long as not contradicting our policy) is not denied, got things recovered to my full liking in the fashion that enables me to continue to volunteer here happily, and this is all thanks to lately regaining the mover tool that had been illegitimately-revoked in the heat of last-year's campaign; I am very thankful to the admin who recently returned to me this permission, you should also thank him and not say things EVERYONE reading this knows to be untrue. Orrlingtalk 19:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

18:16, 6 December 2014 Orrling (talk | contribs | block) moved page File talk:View of Akko from the south.jpg to File talk:Akko.jpg (O:) (revert)
This discussion is going nowhere. See the example above, clear abuse of of filemove right. Please don't play the system. It is not possible to restore your rights without community consensus. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you say that. I have the impression you are not reading the responses you are getting. I have the impression you did not actually follow the links you were given in my responses here. Last year these files which I had donated on Commons were renamed in what was mostly a patent clear violation of our renaming policies and codes-of-conduct, and it was done as a personal harassment. I now have recovered the files, two days ago, believing this was the most natural thing one would do once that I regained my long-good-serving mover right, and this enabled me to contribute here again. My recent use of the mover tool was a regular 'undo' to an abuse from a year-old spree of vandalism directed at me. Have you questioned that person's use of his/her mover tool, which I now have successfully undid, or are you for some reason questioning only mine? Orrlingtalk 20:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You fail to show how possibly any of my recent moving actions is against any policy. I'm listening. You fail to show how and by which standard(s) you as an administrator decide to confront my pure filename reversal moves while not confronting the moves on same files by the other user last year which I have now undone. I'm listening. Orrlingtalk 21:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Orrling, please do not try to be cute. If you don't know what you did wrong with the recent file moves, you only prove you should not have filemover rights. For the benefit of outsiders to this topic, here is a summary of the problems with Orrling's December 2014 filemoves:

Again the attempt to create a pseudo-reality for outsiders who might buy this obvious distortion of the well-recorded history and policy? I may be commited to applying comprehensive and helpful "reason summaries" (for sure will prefer using them next time) when moving files that are not related to this old saga, I am NOT (or was not) committed, understandably, to applying any further reasonings on the recent moves, those reasonings are recorded very clearly in my arguments throughout this forum; this is very well understood by probably anyone who is not outsider to the topic; who followed and realizes that those last files had gone thru an off-policy act just last year, and have now finally been restored by me (=their uploader) with little care for "reason summaries" (which I can apply on the next files I move, not on those where the revert is obvious!). Do'nt try to present a pseudo-reality that suggests "drfh5" is a reason for letting me from now on work without my mover tool. It is not plausible. I'm sorry for the trouble, but please don't try to show that you really care for effective file-move summaries while you never have appeared to care whatsoever about last year's 22 Dec fraudulent reason summaries or no summaries at all. This is doing yourself a bad service before the eyes of too many users who now see this standard-inconsistency and awkward mis-management of policies and codes of conduct. I say this because I presume you DO know the facts. Please grant me back the tool and be sure to pave the way back to a good old decent existence on here where vandalism such as moving a file from Mukta.jpg to some other unconsensed by the donor, without asking, without dialoguing - with the sole aim of clashing into an editor - is NOT allowed. Please reinstate things as they were before, do not try to count reasons that everyone reading this knows to be irrelevant, void and of poor-standard. (seriously..? You're telling me your brand-new policy supports those acts from 22 Dec 2013 and onwards done straight against me here. You calling the reversal by me of filenames back to the quaint original and consistent state a "reducing file name descriptiveness"? You know like others that description's field is not the title, but the description rubric. You know well that uploader's request to their filename is valid here. You're supporting acts that were done against our policy. Filenames don't have to be more "descriptive" than they already are. There's some intelligent ppl here, who know this is petty nonsense that can't work!) Please read, read, read, and reinstate my full rights to as they have been before I was attacked last year without you caring. Stop defending each other (admins) when you know you are wrong! It doesn't look nice outwards! Orrlingtalk 15:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That's the last short time block. You will be blocked undefinitely next time. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop sending emails to info@wikimedia.org ... That will be eventually moved to info-commons@wikimedia.org and responded by us. We will not unblock you for never-ending this kind of email, and only way to appeal your block is, using {{Unblock}}. — Revi 10:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, of course I will continue sending emails to the Wikimedia support (at info@wikimedia.org and any other address I see relevant) as long and as much as I need, you may try to continue to penalize me for doing so of course, if you believe that might affect me. Orrlingtalk 04:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Russavia he knows how to do it. He just does not want to. You realy do here a uhge mistake. Hanay (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanay the presence of individuals who have been involved isn't going to help to alleviate the issue. Orrling should be free to request an unblock request in an environment which is conducive to him addressing any issues, so that an unblock can be considered by myself, or another uninvolved admin. I ask you to leave the issue alone for now. If people are unable to do so, I will re-enable their email access so that they can contact me, or another admin, directly and privately. russavia (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)